HER2 status has not been investigated in the context of the molecular endometrial cancer (EC) classification. Here, we aimed to determine the clinicopathological features and prognostic significance of the HER2 status in the molecularly classified PORTEC-3 trial population of patients with high-risk EC (HREC). HER2 testing was performed on tumor tissues of 407 molecularly classified HREC. HER2 status was determined by HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC; all cases) and subsequent HER2 dual in situ hybridization for cases with any (in) complete moderate to strong membranous HER2 IHC expression. The Χ² test and Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficient were used to compare clinicopathological and molecular features. The Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis. We identified 24 (5.9%) HER2-positive EC of various histological subtypes including serous (n = 9, 37.5%), endometrioid (n = 6, 25.0%), and clear cell (n = 5, 20.8%). HER2 positivity was highly associated with the p53-abnormal subgroup (p53abn, 23/24 cases; p < 0.0001). The correlation between p53abn and the HER2 status (ρ = 0.438; p < 0.0001) was significantly stronger (p < 0.0001) than between serous histology and the HER2 status (ρ = 0.154; p = 0.002). HER2 status did not have independent prognostic value for survival after correction for the molecular classification. Our study strongly suggests that molecular subclass-directed HER2 testing is superior to histotype-directed testing. This insight will be relevant for future trials targeting HER2.

The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB–IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57–1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47–1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone. In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy. clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.

The BJC is owned by Cancer Research UK, a charity dedicated to understanding the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and to making sure that the best new treatments reach patients in the clinic as quickly as possible. The journal reflects these aims. It was founded more than fifty years ago and, from the start, its far-sighted mission was to encourage communication of the very best cancer research from laboratories and clinics in all countries. The breadth of its coverage, its editorial independence and it consistent high standards, have made BJC one of the world's premier general cancer journals. Its increasing popularity is reflected by a steadily rising impact factor.

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of cediranib, olaparib, and cediranib/olaparib compared with standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOC) in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NRG-GY005 is an open-label, four-arm, phase II/III superiority trial enrolling patients with high-grade serous/endometrioid PROC and one to three previous therapies. Key exclusion criteria included previous receipt of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor or receipt of antiangiogenic therapy in the recurrent setting. Treatment arms (SOC [once weekly paclitaxel, topotecan, or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin], cediranib, olaparib, or cediranib/olaparib) were equally randomized. A preplanned interim futility analysis on the basis of progression-free survival (PFS) selected treatment arms to advance to phase III. PFS and overall survival (OS) were phase III coprimary end points, with hierarchical testing of PFS followed by OS to preserve type 1 error control, designed to have 90% power for a 0.625 PFS hazard ratio (HR). OS was tested after PFS in the multiple hierarchical testing procedure. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-two eligible patients were enrolled for phase II/III. Three arms met PFS criteria to carry forward to phase III (SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib). Median PFS was 3.4, 5.2, and 4 months with SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively, with a median follow-up duration of 42.2 months. PFS HR estimates for cediranib/olaparib and cediranib ( v SOC) were 0.796 (98.3% CI, 0.597 to 1.060) and 0.972 (98.3% CI, 0.726 to 1.300), respectively. Median OS was 13.6, 12.8, and 10.5 months, and of 443 patients with measurable disease, ORR was 8.6%, 24.7%, and 13.1% for SOC, cediranib/olaparib, and cediranib, respectively. No new safety signals were identified. In patients receiving cediranib/olaparib, no statistically significant difference was observed on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale compared with SOC (98.3% CI, –1.3 to 1.5, P = .8725). CONCLUSION: The cediranib-containing arms demonstrated clinical activity on the basis of PFS but were not superior compared with SOC.